Which is better? i3 4130 or fx 4350

[Jellyboi]

Which is better for gaming. Battlefield is not a game im going to play so keep that in mind.

Or should i get the i3 4330 or is the fx 4350 better than that?
Im going to be playing most games but want better single core peformance because i want
to run minecraft shaders on multiplayer.

so which should i get? will the fx 4350 be better if i overclock?

 

[JOOK-D]

I agree about the extreme series. I'm thankful that intel have a flagship product.

I would like to agree about more cores being the way forward, but I cannot on AMD's side. The cores themselves are simply not efficient enough. They played the 'moar corez' marketing game and lost, since in most instances those cores are not utilised and only a few weak ones do the work. If they were to produce a high IPC hex/octa core chip I could see it being viable. Currently 4 efficient cores are more than enough.

I would love to see multithreading take off. I expect it to take a while.

If it was a pure dual core against the 6300 when all cores were utilised I would expect the 6300 to win too. However it's a dual core with hyperthreading. If all future applications use 6 cores then I would see it as a viable choice, but I don't understand why you would buy a CPU based on expectation of future applications rather than what currently physically exist and are capable of utilising - less than 4 cores, for the most part. So personally I'd grab the i3, which would also leave me with a much better upgrade path than a 6300 would since AM3+ is essentially a dead platform.

 

[WhiteSnake91]

I've actually had a change of heart after using my bro's AMD pc first hand contrary to all the anti AMD bias online. Unless you're doing nothing but playing cpu intensive stuff like RTS or MMO or Planetside 2(and I'm sure AMD would be playable....after all Planetside is supposed to be coming to PS4 if not already on it, sorry I don't keep up with consoles much...after ditching my xbox 360 RROD machine I haven't looked back really...) I'd go AMD on a budget. For everything else I doubt people could tell a difference. And I'm going to be soon testing out his pc on a CPU intensive game like Starcraft 2 so I'll let you know how that goes.

In 64man BF4 conquest on 1080p ultra his a10 5800k paired with a GTX 660ti matched my overclocked i5 3570k and hd7950. The only time mine did better was on 64man Shanghai conquest, his FPS at the worst dipped to 35 and my worst was like 40. Hardly worth triple the price my intel build cost compared to what his cpu would cost, essentially the $75 dollar Athlon x4 750k.

........all the vehement intel fanboys should try an AMD pc in real life instead of this synthetic benchmark crap. I couldn't tell a difference. And about the higher power consumption thing, it would take so many years for the power consumption to match what an intel would of cost it's really a non point, even for somebody flipping burgers, a 7 more dollar per year cost to run the AMD is nothing.

I really didn't care for AMD until I tried an AMD gaming pc first hand, and now I really like them. I'm planning on building a Kaveri APU portable build now.

 

[JOOK-D]

Good to know WhiteSnake91

I had an FX build that I promptly sold as it didn't have the single-threaded performance I required, so I do have some first-hand experience.

 

[WhiteSnake91]

that's fine it was nothing against you at all, just more of a general statement lol. 😛

 

[sapperastro]

I agree about the extreme series. I'm thankful that intel have a flagship product.

I would like to agree about more cores being the way forward, but I cannot on AMD's side. The cores themselves are simply not efficient enough. They played the 'moar corez' marketing game and lost, since in most instances those cores are not utilised and only a few weak ones do the work. If they were to produce a high IPC hex/octa core chip I could see it being viable. Currently 4 efficient cores are more than enough.

I would love to see multithreading take off. I expect it to take a while.

If it was a pure dual core against the 6300 when all cores were utilised I would expect the 6300 to win too. However it's a dual core with hyperthreading. If all future applications use 6 cores then I would see it as a viable choice, but I don't understand why you would buy a CPU based on expectation of future applications rather than what currently physically exist and are capable of utilising - less than 4 cores, for the most part. So personally I'd grab the i3, which would also leave me with a much better upgrade path than a 6300 would since AM3+ is essentially a dead platform.

Ah, the last part of your post explains a few things to me, I think we are looking at this from different perspectives.

When I didn't have much income to dispose of, and was a 'budget builder' (not that I am saying my PC is some super computer....), it also meant I couldn't afford to turn about and throw money at it again in six months time, or a year, or two years....The best I could do was upgrade a graphics card. Or throw in another stick of RAM. That kind of thing.

So, the thought of upgrading my processor at a whim was not on. I had to look at what was on offer, with the best bang for the buck, and what could do the job for the next 3-6 year period. Because I wouldn't have the money to throw away on another PC easily, especially back when a 'budget' processor with decent specs cost $500 plus...

This naturally includes looking at trends of where things are heading, what things are causing these trends, and see how I can beat the system, as much as I can. Throughout my budget building time, I steered things pretty well by doing this. In this thread and others, that is all I am doing; Looking at trends, what is causing them, and attempting to build a budget machine in my mind that caters for the next few years on as little money as possible.

After looking at price/performance, checking out various rigs of people I know, and future trending based on current gen consoles (that have had a huge impact since the early 2000s), I concluded that in that price bracket the 6300 was the chip to beat. It performs adequately at stock speeds for desktop applications, rendering, streaming, gaming etc, can be overclocked later on with a few cheap upgrades, and has the cores there if needed for future applications.

So, the budget builder, at least by my own experiences and the experiences of others I have known, cannot afford a wasted dollar when it comes to upgrades. The next rig is years away. Upgrading a cpu is not cost efficient, especially when compared to upgrading a gpu which is far more bang for buck in gaming. An upgrade from an i3 is at least another $200 outlay. That is a decent graphics card right there. Or even a big chunk of a new system down the line.